Ahmen....oh wait

>> ^Buck:

Ahmen[Ramen]....oh wait

Fixed that for you!

I'd be OK with science teachers saying something like: "Some people believe the universe was created by one or more supernatural beings. The supernatural, by definition, is outside of the scope of science, and thus will not be covered in this science class."

The Steves make a good point.

Nicely Said

Can anyone from the UK speak up if they know of any reasonable opposition to the theory of evolution over here? I have literally never heard anyone with any form of science qualification beyond a-level state that they do not believe in evolution.

It always surprises me when i hear that america has problems with this kind of thing. The worst thing is that people deny it due to a lack of education on the subject, and those people who lack the education are trying to make sure education skips over it.

Bananas and cauliflower don't demonstrate evolution. They demonstrate intelligent design. Had the mutations not been specifically selected by the growers they would have disappeared, overwhelmed by the overall gene pool of the species.

'Evolution' is shorthand for 'Evolution by Natural Selection' in the context you're using it, with 'natural selection' being the mechanism that Darwin and Wallace realized could be driving the evolution that others had for so long struggled to explain.

When groups of people select what should be bred and crossbred and carried on for our benefit, its 'evolution by human selection'. Eventually human-driven selection can produce things like dogs which can no longer interbreed (but come from the same ancestors) and plants that don't even produce seeds (like bananas, which have to be planted by people).

'Natural Selection' is only different because it takes people out as the selectors of who breeds and who has offspring, and roughly says 'in nature, small variations between individuals play a role in determining which ones thrive and have offspring (or conversely don't thrive)... this natural selection slowly accumulates, and whole new species can develop (especially with migration to new areas where different adaptations give benefit)'.

>> ^Calcul8r:

Bananas and cauliflower don't demonstrate evolution. They demonstrate intelligent design. Had the mutations not been specifically selected by the growers they would have disappeared, overwhelmed by the overall gene pool of the species.

You don't have to teach both sides of the argument if one side of the argument is utter crap.

>> ^Calcul8r:

Bananas and cauliflower don't demonstrate evolution. They demonstrate intelligent design. Had the mutations not been specifically selected by the growers they would have disappeared, overwhelmed by the overall gene pool of the species.


So what you're saying is that they had a beneficial mutation which enabled them to survive and prosper in their current environment? That sounds like a text book example of evolution to me.

>> ^Calcul8r:

Bananas and cauliflower don't demonstrate evolution. They demonstrate intelligent design. Had the mutations not been specifically selected by the growers they would have disappeared, overwhelmed by the overall gene pool of the species.


You're right. For some reason the writer of the video choose 3 examples of selective breeding, then stopped.

To everyone saying selective breeding is a type of evolution, that just isn't how the word is defined. The utility and methods of selective breeding were well understood in Darwin's day, and were not controversial then or now. Educated people were well aware of how much selective breeding could change the form of an animal or plant. Darwin's great insight was that a similar process exists in nature, driven by survival of the fittest as well as sexual selection. He called it natural selection to distinguish it from the human-driven kind everyone was familiar with.

The science of evolution is the study of the natural process. Selective breeding and genetic engineering are ways of producing genetic change WITHOUT evolution.

EDIT: I was wrong. Sorry, I know it's irritating when people try to correct incorrectly. Scientists do consider artificial selection a type of evolution. However, it is good to keep in mind that the creationist position is not that selective breeding/artificial selection doesn't work. But they'd argue either that god is invisibly guided the development of animals, or that the earth is so incredibly young that animals were created virtually as they are today. They use the word evolution to mean only natural selection pressures. And here I thought that was the real definition.